About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
, as of right now china owns $1.15 trillion of our debt. then, number two on the list, is japan with $1.13 trillion of our debt. now, this is interesting. out of this debt number three on the list is opec. opec is an entity. that's the countries of ecuador and venezuela and india and bahrain and iran and iraq and kuwait and amman and qatar and saudi arabia and the u.a.e., algeria, ga been a, -- gabon, nigeria. they're now number three on the list and they own $267 billion of our debt. brazil comes in at number four, $250.5 billion. and then number five on the list, new to the list, the top five list, the caribbean banking centers. now own $240.4 billion of u.s. debt. by the way, caribbean banking centers are the bahamas, bermuda, cayman islands, netherlands and panama. this is who owns us. this is who owns our debt. and this is why on this side of the aisle, what we continue to say is the spending has to be dealt with. we have seen -- we've heard from everybody. we are hearing from economists all around the globe. and they repeatedly say what we are saying, what we've been saying for ye
, close to china, or is it just for the 50 states. guest: a really good question they apply to of the federated territories as well and for some of the grant programs there are statutory minimum amounts that have to be provided for the different territories. join the conversation and talked to david maurer about a homeland security grants to states, here are the numbers to call. what formula did the grant programs follow went looking to get out the money? what do they have to do? guest: it varies from program to program, but generally speaking, as a first cut, dhs takes into consideration the risk. in other words, it wants to provide the money more toward portions of the country where there is a greater risk of attack or natural disaster. secondly, we look at capabilities. how capable are the state and local governments already. those that are less capable should get additional funding. and third, they look of the types of project that they are applying for. one of the interesting thing about the third step isthe state and local governments do not apply untypically for speci
is broke. china owns us and we are sending our young men and our money to afghanistan and we're going to cut programs right here in america for the american people. . the american people need to put the pressure on congress to bring our troops home now and not wait until december of 2014. mr. speaker, i assure you if we start bringing them home in december of 2014, it will become 2015 and it will become 2016 and how many more families have to cry about their loved ones being killed in a war that has no end to it? mr. speaker, today i would like to submit for the record, i will ask unanimous consent the names of 28 american service members who have been killed in the last few weeks. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, again i ask the people to look at this poster and realize that this war is costing us in so many, many ways. the most important our young men and women who are dying. if you agree with me that we need to bring our troops home before the current december 2014 deadline, please go to www.bringthemhome201.com, and sign the petition. mr. speaker, i have been to walter reed an
people participating in the global economy, when you add china, india, others that have exniced prosperity comes from the private sector rm we've got the same antiquated tax system today that we had 20 years ago. we should be taking the opportunity to relook this thing and say, what does it take to be globally competitive today? yes, i was on the simpson bowles commission. some might think i like that proposal a lot, i did. i don't think it has to be exactly like that but i think there are some principles in there that are important. this idea of doing individual, corporate, cap gains do it all at the same time, makes sense. the territorial system for companies makes sense, with the right anti-abuse clauses so nothing screwy happens. that we he re-look all the deductions as we lock at simplifying the system because every deduction, while important to somebody, is a market distortion. and we ought to be looking at do, we want these market distortions at a time when our economy needs more flexibility to respond to a very globally different place than we had 20 years ago. so i thin
smaller than those of countries like china. and in turn today -- 8 report was done on comparative tax, and they support 20% of their federal government through import taxes. why is it that we feel we cannot compete with a country that is taxing us heavily on our imports, yet when they export to our country we have just 1.9% next that is ridiculous. it is not a level playing field -- 1.9%? that is ridiculous. that is not a level playing field. an in tern in indiana did this research. guest: there is the risk of a trade war, a violation of the world trade organization pact. a lot of the big box stores rely on inexpensive imports. so it would be a trade-off. it would have an impact on the prices. host: winchester, ohio. thomas is an independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i watch c-span all the time. i'm curious why this continuation of the republican versus democrat bashing goes on when there is such an important issue that needs to be taken care of in this country. why is there not a federal sales tax to take care of some of this debt that we have increased needlessly, in many
is the head line at "the washington post" fed page. josh hicks reports -- guest: i just got back from china, and we talked about the electoral college there, and a state that have a problem with freedom, you know, and democracy. they can't figure it out. i tried to explain to them and they still wonder why do we still have this if we were this representative democracy and the people have their way. very interesting. host: how did you answer the question? guest: i tried to explain the foundation. the fact we have federalism and states have power and in this particular case it is the power to select a president. they did not want congress to do it. but they still cannot buy it, i don't think. host: on twitter -- asking to explain the historical justification and why do we need it now. guest: the justification for it at the founding was they did not want congress to make the selection of the president. they wanted to take away from the capital where maybe chicanery would occur and people would do deals. they wanted it to respect federalism, a federal election rather than a national legend. it
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)